Posted on 11/18/2018 6:55:57 PM PST by Steve Schulin
In the waning days of her congressional race, Republican Katie Arrington attempted to paint her opponent as a one-issue candidate, concerned only with offshore drilling.
The issue, however, is likely one of the main forces that helped Democrat Joe Cunningham turn the 1st Congressional District blue for the first time in four decades.
And it may have resonated with an important constituency that Cunningham’s staunch opposition to fossil fuel exploration likely spoke to: conservation-minded conservatives.
“It’s a huge group in the 1st District,” said outgoing Rep. Mark Sanford.
Sanford, who lost to Trump loyalist Katie Arrington in a primary for the seat this spring, wrote in a New York Times op-ed last week that the Republican Party should look back to its own conservation history — think Teddy Roosevelt preserving national lands — in a bid to do better in future contests.
He told The Post and Courier that environmentally aware Republicans exist throughout the state, but especially in the coastal 1st District, where ignoring them would be a blind spot.
Arrington initially said she stood with the president’s plan to open up oil drilling in the Atlantic Ocean, a stance she later backed away from. It’s not clear how big an impact that single issue had in the race, but it netted Cunningham the endorsements of three Republican-identifying coastal mayors, and most observers agreed it likely helped him significantly.
State Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Charleston, said he believed Arrington was being genuine when she clarified her stance on drilling, and it was enough assurance for him to support her.
Campsen, who represents the same coastal communities included in the 1st District, prides himself on his own environmental record. Among other efforts, he drafted the legislation that eventually led to the state’s land conservation bank.
However, Campsen said Arrington’s reversal may not have been enough for voters.
“It was too late, probably, too little and too late, to really affect that particular issue,” he said.
In coastal South Carolina, many residents have a deep connection to the land. The complex ecosystem of marshes, creeks and rivers is part of the region’s appeal, and the lifestyle, for many, revolves around outdoor activities: hunting, fishing or bird-watching.
“There’s not the sort of conservative ... reflexive, anti-environment thing we might see in other sort of quote-unquote red states,” College of Charleston political scientist Matt Nowlin said. “There is a big outdoor community here that is concerned about environmental issues.”
And that history reaches back many years, said Dana Beach, founder of the Coastal Conservation League, a Charleston-based environmental group.
Part of that history, Beach said, is a long line of field biologists documenting wildlife in the Lowcountry. Famed ornithologists and painters Mark Catesby and John James Audubon both spent part of their careers working from Charleston.
“It’s an embedded part of the culture, I think, to be interested in natural history and to be concerned about it,” Beach said.
But in a more modern era, a few notable Republicans from the coastal region have also embodied the coastal relationship with the natural landscape.
One is Arthur Ravenel Jr., namesake of Charleston’s most iconic bridge, who also diverged from the GOP on environmental matters when he represented the 1st District, from 1987 to 1995.
“Arthur Ravenel probably did as much as anybody to make it safe for conservatives to be conservationists,” said Beach, who served as a staffer for Ravenel before founding CCL.
Campsen has also made a point of pushing for conservation through free-market incentives, he said, in part because of his own connection to the natural landscape. His impetus for opposing offshore drilling isn’t just the possibility of a spill, as with many other coastal Republicans — he’s skeptical that the coastline could support the industry necessary to build and maintain drilling infrastructure.
The issue, he said, is bipartisan.
“It’s a big-tent conservation in South Carolina,” Campsen said. “It’s not Republican, it’s not Democrat, it’s a big tent. You’ll find some of the most conservative Republicans who are coalescing with environmental groups to help preserve the natural resources that we have, and you really develop some momentum.”
There’s also Sanford’s own environmental record. As governor, he also supported the conservation bank, which he has cited as among his proudest accomplishments.
In September, Sanford made a public plea for Congress to maintain the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which President Trump’s budget had targeted for a 90 percent cut.
Sanford also has opposed oil drilling and is pushing to create an expansive public park on Daniel Island.
It remains unclear, however, whether the politician who once was considered unbeatable, with waning time left in office, will see his latest conservation effort through.
Caitlin Byrd contributed to this article.
Don’t like drilling? Freeze in the dark, then, South Carolina, you bunch of “progressive” idiots in Columbia.
NO.
The key issue was Medicaid expansion- thanks to McCain.
SC voters are paying for it for others and yet don’t have it themselves.
Voters won’t atand for that sort of thing.
This district sounds like an ideal location for a new toxic waste dump, hopefully right next door to Sanford’s house.
Some in South Carolina favor finding out how much oil and gas resources we have off our shore. Up and down our coast however, local governments are on record opposing offshore oil drilling. I don’t live in the SC-01 congressional district, but I do live on a beach north of there. Why do you think we should accept the risk of oil spill here? My career was in nuclear power. As far as I know, we don’t have any oil-fired electric generating plants in our state, although many homes and businesses do have diesel generators or small gasoline-powered generators for use during power outages. To folks who say we should risk our beaches for the good of the nation, I note that the Savannah River Site is not the type of place you’d pick for storing nuclear waste, but here we are, storing plutonium waste from nuclear weapons production. You’re free to wish that we freeze in the dark, but I’d sure rather you tell your elected officials that SC should not continue to bear the burden of this risk, and that a less-risky place be chosen (again) as a waste repository.
Not a fan of Mark Sanford, but I would probably consider myself a “conservative conservationist”, but of course, it all depends on what that really means. But taking reasonable, sensible steps toward preserving the best of our natural heritage seems to me consistent with some variant of conservatism. And that is not to be confused with using hysterical fears about “climate change” to facilitate a government takeover of the world’s economic systems.
Concur. I live on the coast of NC and I want them to find out how much oil is out there and drill it if profitable. With modern methods, the risks are little. And as it has been shown many times before that if an oil spill occurs, then it gets straightened out (not cheap or pretty- but done).
“Why do you think we should accept the risk of oil spill here?”
Cite all the scientific studies that show areas that were irretrievably harmed by an oil spill.
“Why do you think we should accept the risk of oil spill here? “
IMHO, the “risk” is more than acceptable. Once you get past the gloom and doom scare tactics of those whose intent is to cripple this nation.
I have been involved in the offshore petroleum industry since 1973 and the extent they go to ensuring safety and accident prevention is extraordinary.
I also have strong ties to the American fishing industry and I have stated previously that installation of offshore infrastructure on the Atlantic side from Florida northward would facilitate a major boom in the enhancement of fish stocks as it has done in the Gulf of Mexico. If I thought for a minute that it would harm the ocean or the fishing industry I would not be endorsing it.
BTW, I lived on the beach in Florida.
A successful nation must have access to abundant energy resources.
Hi Sarge - I’m not the right person to ask. But I hope you’re not suggesting that I ought to support offshore drilling just because I’m not the expert you seek. It’s only 8-1/2 years since the Deepwater Horizon spill started. Would any data from studying that meet your request? I live in a town with year-round population of maybe 22,000 folks. Tourism is a huge part of our economy here. Millions of visitors come through here every year. I read that the Deepwater Horizon spill resulted in millions of lost “beach days” along the 1,200 miles of affected coastline. I’m sure that many of my neighbors would lose their jobs if we had such a loss even for just one summer.
We "progressive" idiots in Columbia SC are in District 2.
And we have re-elected Republican Joe Wilson, of "You Lie" fame once again. He's been in office since 2001.
Katie Arrington is in District 1, which covers Charleston SC. Which the article points out.
She lost a congressional seat held by republicans forever...probably because she beat Mark Sanford in the primary and he refused to endorse her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.